RSS 2.0
I, Robot is one of those blockbuster titles that has high hopes when it comes to commercial success. I spent the entire past week in Paris and, literally, in every tube station and on every bus there were posters promoting this movie by The Crow director Alex Proyas (who is mainly known for the countless amount of music videos he has directed). When I got back I felt an incredible need to feed my movie-hunger and was quite pleased to see I, Robot scheduled for a pre-première. Although I am not too fond of Will Smith because of his acting (in)capability, I found I, Robot really enjoyable and truly inspiring artistically-wise.
2035. The world is structured by a society in which man lives in harmony with robots, mainly put there for the comfort of mankind. They do their laundry and take the dogs for a walk. The biggest robot company, USR, is one the verge of mass-releasing a new type of robot, the NS5, that almost thinks and acts like a human being, except for the fact it is unable to feel emotions. All robots live by the rules of three laws of robotics, written by engineering guru Dr. Lanning, proclaiming robots should at all times abide by the rules and well-being of human beings. When Dr. Lanning is found dead, everyone at USR believes he has committed suicide, but when robot-phobic police officer Spooner (played by Will Smith) starts to investigate the case, he is convinced one of the NS5’s has killed Dr. Lanning.
What struck me most when watching I, Robot are the jaw-dropping visuals, especially the smooth organic design of the NS5 robots (they actually reminded me a lot of the robots used in in the Björk video All Is Full of Love directed by Chris Cunningham). They were created using the exact same technique used for Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and, incidentally, LOTR’s Weta Workshop is also responsible for the visual effects in I, Robot. The scenes in which the NS5 robots attack and climb the USR building are a truly salivating experience.
The entire artwork and cinematography reminded me a lot of Spielberg’s Minority Report and although I, Robot cannot compete with the latter, the plot is just as highly original and clever as any Philip K. Dick story. Proyas loses himself near the end using unusual and over-the-top camera angles, leading to no conclusion but they must have done some of the final scenes by computer, because otherwise it could not be filmed.This takes away part of the magic. It is encouraging Proyas, however, does use visual tricks and doesn’t have CGI-characters flying and walking all over the screen, as in the new Star Wars films.
I, Robot is fast-paced and finally shows a (muscular, pumped up) Will Smith that can do more than just kill aliens (Independence Day, Men in Black I and II) or crazy scientists (the laughable Wild, Wild West). He is still the type of actor that needs action and a minimum of lines to be convincing, but there are some traces of an ability for emotion in his role as the slightly paranoid police detective Spooner. Quite impressive is the gorgeous Bridget Moynahan, and her character of robot psychologist Susan Calvin who, thank heavens, evades some of the clichéd developments. The screenplay is a bit slow at times, especially because it is clear some elements introduced in the beginning will return later on in the movie and, when they do, it slows down the speed of the story somewhat. It is a relief, however, to see a Will Smith movie that is not dominated by an accompanying annoying Will Smith song.
Directed by: Alex Proyas
Starring: Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Bruce Greenwood
Runtime: 115 minutes
Genre: action, sci-fi, thriller
Release Dates: US 16 July, UK 6 August, The Netherlands 5 August
Official Website
If you liked this one also check out: Robocop (1987), Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001), Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002), Minority Report (2002)
Arjan Welles (213 posts)Arjan Welles - law graduate. I work at a bank, I work as a film critic for Dutch and English media. My favorite directors are David Lynch, David Fincher, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino. I love arthouse over blockbusters.
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Hey, you beat me to it
I saw this yesterday and it was quite okay, but it didn’t blow me away. The problem is that this story has already been told many times in other movies: The Matrix Trilogy, Blade Runner (very, very similar to this), The Terminator Trilogy, Star Trek (Data’s quest for humanity), Bishop in the Alien-movies and numerous other movies which have this theme in it. So there are no real surprises.
I agree with you that it was quite well-made, but nowadays the ever-increasing use of CGI is getting on my nerves and creates a viewing experience that often tires me: I cannot help but determining all the time whether they are using CGI or not. I still find it fake, no matter how clever it is. Especially those scenes where it is all CGI with the actor being the only real thing (and sometimes not). I would’ve preferred to see more animatronics for the robots. The robots in Star Wars look more real to me.
SPOILER:
What did bother me more were some corny things in the movie. They enter the heavily-guarded USR-building through a maintenance tunnel – come on, that is too corny! It’s either that or a ventilation shaft! Don’t you think that such an intelligent machine that controls a whole city doesn’t know about those tunnels? I also found it very strange that VIKI didn’t come into action earlier and she could’ve had much more robots to guard her (maybe some armed robots?). These sloppy deatils annoyed me.
Finally, I have to say that Smith did quite a good job, he didn’t go too much in the ‘Fresh Prince’-mode. He gave a good combination of humour and action, only his emotional scenes were a bit painful to watch… But he can act and I think he can play emotional scenes, only to combine all these things together is still a bit too much for him.
Comment by Paco — Sun August 1, 2004 @ 16:49SPOILERS!
Well, I think there where some animatronics in this film… more than you think… especially when the robot’s face wasn’t shown or the parts where Spooner grabs to the NS5′s legs…
The moral was present but I dunno: in this case that didn’t matter much to me and it was a justifable moral. It wasn’t dripping all of the movie anyway. And yes: there are many parallels to pinpoint: the Frankenstein-one (although after the final plotchanges that doesn’t make sense since it wasn’t robot turning on its creator directly, but because of a third party ordered it)
hey Paco: Sorry for that; you go review King Arthur
! I will probably see it tonight but I dunno: I don’t think I’ll write about it.. but maybe I am too prejudiced.
Comment by arjan — Sun August 1, 2004 @ 17:06Arjan, how many films per week do you watch? I am amazed!! PS: It’s sunny out there
Comment by suzero — Sun August 1, 2004 @ 19:02King Arthur… blegh, no thanks
Comment by Paco — Sun August 1, 2004 @ 19:36@ suzero: 1 to 2 movies a week in the cinema; more on DVD (but that is very variable)… I am most pround that I am an honest moviegoer: I don’t download or see illegal copies: all in the movie theatre or on official DVD
@ Paco: I saw King Arthur yesterday (there’s my 2 movies a week average
) and it was absolute rubbish: the story was confusing and messy, the characters were hard to tell apart and the action was so so… I can’t believe it is the same director as the truly excellent Training Day 
Comment by arjan — Mon August 2, 2004 @ 12:59There is only one good Arthur movie: http://www.chokingonpopcorn.com/popcorn/index.php?p=267
Comment by Paco — Mon August 2, 2004 @ 16:24I don’t have any qualms when it comes to downloading movies. It’s like the music industry. It’s all a big bucks industry with us, the consumer, footing the bill…
That said, I go to the cinema regularly, support independents, buy a mass of DVDs (and vinyl if I’ve downloaded a song I like) so I feel it all balances out in the end…
Comment by PiP — Tue August 3, 2004 @ 12:23Same here, Pip. If I really like a DVD or CD I’ll buy it. I only download stuff that is hard to find or which I deem not worth seeing in the cinema (I prefer to see good movies on the big screen).
Comment by Paco — Tue August 3, 2004 @ 14:12I wonder how long it takes before the industry comes to understand this stance -which a lot of people have.
well cinema is expensive… especially considering the fact I paid over 8.50 euros to see King Arthur and even more for I, Robot…. my answer is: digital projection: making copies and distribution will be much cheaper… at first the consumer will have to pay for the new digital installations of cinemas but eventually going to the movies will be cheaper…
I don’t find any charm in seeing a crappy downloaded version on a pc screen… but that is a matter of taste.
I don’t condemn people who download; it is just not my thing and it probably never will be…
and DVDs are becoming cheaper.. I buy a lot of these at the 3 for 33 euros discounts (latest purchases: Pirates of the Carribean, The Game and Fight Club)
Comment by arjan — Tue August 3, 2004 @ 15:54Mmm… Even when things get cheaper (i.e. the small cost of producing one CD or DVD), it’s never reflected in the price the consumer pays. Anyways, with cinemas, it’s not just about the film: the ticket pays for the venue, the staff etc. So, I doubt digital projection will make things cheaper.
And what about the price of popcorn? (I make and take my own!).
And sorry, have to disagree with you too with the ‘crappy downloaded version on a PC screen’. Lots of downloaded movies are incredible quality: you wouldn’t know the difference. Some work in DVD players and anyways, there’s not much difference between a computer screen and (small) TV screen…
And if you have a powerbook, even better. Can watch movies at the airport and (if you travel First Class in a train on England you can even plug your powerbook into the train’s electricity supply. How cool is that).
All that said, going out to a cinema to see a film is still one of my favourite things in life to do… Right up there after sex and ski-ing.
Comment by PiP — Tue August 3, 2004 @ 19:23well you’re right but what I would give for good flawless copies of films (so: digital)! I agree with you: movies, sex and music…
Comment by arjan — Tue August 3, 2004 @ 20:41It’s funny but I don’t actually like ‘perfection’ (i.e: digital). For example, what I love about vinyl as opposed to CDs, are the crackling sound you hear when you play a record – especially an album. I love it when it goes quiet in between tracks and starts really crackling as you know it’s a track which has been played over and over again… the needle placed in the same groove of the record.
It gives it history. Same with film. And why I love watching old copies of movies which bear a sense of that history and of their making. I know a lot of today’s generation simply refuse to watch black & white movies or one’s without sound (and with live musical accompaniment instead). To me, they’re some of my favourites. You can really get transported back in time…
Comment by PiP — Tue August 3, 2004 @ 21:24Not only has vinyl that ‘vintage’ feel to it, the sound quality is actually richer. You’d need some really hyper-expensive Super-CD-whatever stuff to duplicate the fulness and richness of good analogue vinyl-sound. So it’s not only the crackling sound that is pleasing
Comment by Paco — Wed August 4, 2004 @ 0:26Beautifully true…
Actually one thing that I do love about movies these days is the incredible sound quality/surround sound. That’s progress…
Comment by PiP — Wed August 4, 2004 @ 9:43As a big fan of Isaac Asimov’s writing I was amazed to find this movie actually had quite an Asimovian story. With all the shooting and running they could have easily forgotten that.
Some plot twists are silly, but the main ouline is one that the old master could have thought of himself… in fact I think he did. In a story that unfolded entirely different, but still…
Comment by weefselkweekje — Wed September 1, 2004 @ 16:41I liked this – but there are indeed some annoying details, like the unlikely ‘ventilation shaft’ entrance mentioned above.
I felt the relationship between Will Smith’s character and Dr. Calvin was rather forced. They met once while Will was at USR on cop-business and next thing you know he’s knocking on her door after he’s been attacked and helping himself to her whisky.
And what was the sideline with that young boy that he kept telling not to “cuss”? Totally pointless character.
Also, the three laws… aren’t they the same as the ones in AI?
However, regarding the CGI which everybody seems to be bitching about recently: it didn’t bother me in the least here. Perhaps I don’t have an eye for it or perhaps I WANT to believe
but I couldn’t see the difference most of the time. There was the occasional badly lit key effect, but the robots were great I thought.
And the “impossible” camera angles at the end I actually liked. I don’t mind if that means it’s humanly impossible. It added to the feel of the fight occasionally. Earlier on though, when Will was fighting Sonny, Proyas uses the almost stroboscopic effect of increased shutter speed which makes everything slightly jerky and very difficult to see what was going on.
Comment by suzero — Wed April 20, 2005 @ 21:31